User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 9

Thanks :-)

Thanks for catching my derp and for fixing the article. Much appreciated :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive 8

When you created your talk page's archive #8 you accidentally created it in the main space as the article archive 8. I deleted that page and recreated the archive in your talk page space. It's now linked from your archive box above. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saturday Night Live (season 41), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Drake and Chris Evans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Presiding Bishop (LDS Church), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Common consent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

reverted edits on patriarch and patriarchal blessing pages

Hello, I saw that you reverted my recent edits on the pages for Patriarch and Patriarchal blessing. Your reason for reverting was that you found the sources to be dubious and biased against the lds church. My sources for talking about lineage were a book written by Mark E. Petersen from the quorum of the 12 apostles and the mormon blog bycommonconsent. Neither of these can rightly be said to be biased against the mormon church. My source for talking about how the content of patriarchal blessings has changed over time was an article published in Dialogue which describes itself as "an independent journal of mormon thought". It is quite the opposite of dubious, in my opinion.

For me, one of the most interesting things about the LDS church is to see how it change over time to become the way that it is now. When someone reads an article on a mormon related topic that is light on the history then they might get the false impression that the way things are now is the way that things always have been. This is my motivation for adding some of those facts to the article. In the patriarchal blessing lineage section, I wanted to mention that the overwhelming portion of blessings declare lineage to be from Ephraim or Mannesseh just because it's really interesting and unexpected. Without mentioning anything it gives the impression that peoples lineages are declared more evenly across the different tribes.

If you still have a problem with my edits after reading this please let me know and we can discuss further. Otherwise, I'd like to reinstate them. Thanks!

Dithridge (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris Heimerdinger

Hi there, I see that you reverted my edit on the Chris Heimerdinger article. I've looked it over, and found one typo, where I did introduce a spelling error instead of changing the punctuation I intended to change. Other than that, everything I did looks legit to me, unless I'm not understanding something. I italicized titles of books and book series, and made other small changes to improve the article's grammar and punctuation, and to make it more wiki-standard (unnecessary capital letters, "December" instead of "Dec." within a sentence, etc.). I'm just looking for clarification, especially as you mentioned my edit being factually incorrect, but I changed no facts, only punctuation and caps. If you can shed any light on this, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Copied from Jessicapierce's talk page

Hello, Jessica! Thank you for dropping me a line on my talk page stating your concerns about my reverting your edits. I would be happy to explain my revert. Here are my specific reasons for doing so:

1. Per Wikipedia's manual of style, film genres should be capitalized.

2. Not sure what my reasoning behind restoring the month abbreviations was. I did revert my own revert of that.

3. Chris Heimerdinger specifically collected tennis shoes for the project in question, and specifics are always better than sweeping generalizations.

4. Book series titles should not be italicized, only bolded. If it were the name of a periodical or newspaper or a single book within the series, that would be different, but where it's a book series, it should be only in bold typeface.

Thanks for taking time to read my reply. If you want to reply to this comment, I have made a copy of it on my talk page and would prefer to continue this discussion there, as I don't typically watch other user's talk pages, with obviously some exceptions. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks so much for your reply! These are exactly the kinds of fine points I welcome help with, because although I'm familiar with the MOS, there's a lot of know (and forget), and it wouldn't kill me to brush up on it, which is what I'm doing now.

(1.) The MOS is so unwieldy and split up on some topics - or maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place - that I'm having trouble finding anything on the capitalization of film genres. The closest I've come is MOS:GENRECAPS, which refers to music and literature. Since "science fiction" is given as the correct variant for describing books, I would think "fantasy live action" would be correct for film...?

(4.) This section certainly contains some tidbits I was wrong about, whoops! However, it does say that an "actual title of a series declared by the author or publisher" should be italicized, such as The Chronicles of Narnia. The Tennis Shoes Adventure Series, to me, would seem to fit that example, especially as that's the title of the wiki article, and it's fully capitalized.

However, that page itself seems to have mixed feelings about the italics, as the title of the page is in plain text, but within the text, "Tennis Shoes Adventure Series" is italicized. (I recently edited that page, and just double-checked - those italics weren't my doing!)

Any light you can shed on this would be helpful, though I don't mean to take up more of your time on this small matter. Can you point me to other sections of the MOS that might apply? Most of what I do here is finesse various lists, and punctuating titles is a frequent part of that. I'd like to get it right. Thanks again! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Book of Abraham

Hi! I just wanted to give you a heads up that I've been interested in the Book of Abraham for awhile, and, because I recently got a few books on the subject, I decided to try and clean up the article, reorganize a few things, and generally improve it. I have no bias or intent to do anything other than improve the article. As such, I found this revert a little odd, since it reverted the article back to a revision that included typos (e.g. "moifications", "dependence of", and "Joseph Smith Jun As a Translator"). Furthermore, most, if not all, of what I have added has a source behind it. All in all, I just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding. :)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Gen. Quon, thanks for your message. My biggest issue with your edits is that the material you added was put in without a consensus decision to do so. Consensus is a major part of resolving conflicts on Wikipedia, and short of that, unless the reliability of the cited sources can be easily established, there will be issues with your edits being accepted. I would strongly encourage you to seek for such a consensus before reverting my edits. I don't know how recently you joined Wikipedia or how familiar you are with Wikipedia policy, so if you need an explanation of what a consensus decision entails, you can feel free to ask. As I said, the biggest issues I had with your edits is that there is no consensus to support these changes. Once such a consensus is established, I wouldn't have any objections to reintroducing the material into the article. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Gen Quon, as you can see, I went back and reverted the page to what it was before any of the changes were made. I still feel that a consensus needs to decide on the merits/disadvantages of these changes before they are implemented. Anytime a single user makes as many changes as you did in such a short period of time, they are likely to be called into question unless you explain in detail what you are wanting to do and the intent behind it, as well as giving others the chance to comment on these changes and either approve or reject them. Please seek to establish a consensus on these edits before reintroducing them into the article. Otherwise, your edits are likely to be reverted again. Please understand, I'm not trying to be the "bad guy" or the "bully" here. I have genuine concerns about the merits of and the intent behind the edits. Please do not revert again unless and until such a consensus is established. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)--Jgstokes (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, so much for the olive branch... I've been editing Wikipedia for 10 years (and I've worked on bringing almost 300 articles up to Good or Featured status); I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to show that I know how the consensus thing works. However, your understanding of the issue is completely off the mark. I'm allowed to make as many changes/edits as I want to an article, provided that I have the quality prose and sources to back said edits up (which I do—the main book I'm using is by Robert K. Ritner, an Egyptologist at one of the top institutions in the world, the University of Chicago). Furthermore, there is no policy that says any and all edit needs to have express consensus by all other editors (otherwise, all edits would have to be vetted before added, and that's just not a process that would work for an encyclopedia this size); it's a much more nuanced ordeal. There is also not a policy that says "anytime a single user makes as many changes as you did in such a short period of time, they are likely to be called into question". It seems that you are unhappy with my additions for some reason, and thus are using vague Wiki-jargon and a distorted understanding of the site's rules in an attempt to undo what I have worked hard to make. If you don't stop this disruptive undoing, I'll have to bring this up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I really appreciate the message and the apology: it's totally accepted, and I too apologize for any rudeness. I was being a little snippy, and for that I apologize. You seem to truly want to make the encyclopedia a better place, and I understand that sometimes people can make wholesale changes that are bad/bias/ill-advised, so I get why you might have been skeptical of my changes. All-in-all, no hard feelings, and (since I plan to keep working on the article a bit) if you see something that you think needs changing or your have an idea, feel free to jump in there! I just want to make the article comprehensive, detailed, and tidy.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Please see my note for you here. ~Awilley (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 3. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. '

• Normally, I'd let your rhetoric slide, but you've completely misrepresented what I've said. Nowhere did I say I would AfD Larry Wilson if the DRV was closed as overturn or restore; I in fact said the exact opposite, that I would AfD if the DRV was closed as endorse, no consensus or relist. I strongly urge you to retract your comment misinterpreting what I said, and in addition calling me a bigot. This is the second time you have done so in as many weeks and I frankly believe it is completely inappropriate. My AfDing of LDS articles (and, when it comes down to it, not that many of them) isn't about you and it isn't about the LDS Church.pbp 04:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Saturday Night Live (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jgstokes. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)